GM bankruptcy!

[Chevyrocker]

I'll probably piss a lot of people off with this one, but we're all about opinions here at Camaro5, so here it goes...I think the reason GM is so slow with doing things is because of the union contracts. Toyota and Honda get their work done so fast overseas because they can go to anyone to make their products. They can say, "whoever can make this with this quality in this time frame for the least money will get the job". GM cannot. We are so hindered by the rules and regulations that our great grandfathers wrote 100 years ago that it is truly preventing us from moving forward or even keeping up with the times. ie The Camaro should have been out 2 years ago. The Volt should be sitting in my showroom today, the Beat and the other 2 concepts (trax and groove) should be 09 models so that we could whether the storm that is the gas crisis. How is it Mercedes can come out with the Smart car at the same time gas prices top $4/gallon? The answer is they always have a "plan b" that they can start on the drop of a dime to keep up with market trends. GM and really all American Auto makers have really done this to themselves. Instead of trying to own all segments of the market, GM said F*** it, we'll just make quality trucks. Now we have cars like the Aveo that are supposed to compete with cars like the civic...come on. Not that I personally would ever buy a Honda, but to your average consumer, The Aveo is a piece of junk in comparison. Yea, it may be $3500 less than the civic, but that $3500 in consumers eyes is well invested in a car that is as well built as that one is. I blame the big wigs and the Amercian public for being so un-supportive of the largest car company in the world for what's happening right now.

What can we do about it? I think the idea someone wrote earlier about inflating the stock market would be genious, however, it wouldn't happen that easily. Buying stock in GM at under $10 a share seems like a good idea to me because by 2010, the camaro and the Volt will be out, so if you sell at the right time, you should see a reasonable return. But I'm no stock broker so don't quote me on that.

All and all, if GM wants to move ahead, they need to get eith the times. The union is prehistoric at this point. The general public sees a union built car a piece of junk because no matter how these workers perform, they will still get paid and they will not be penalized if they miss a bolt here or a screw there. If these people were fighting for their jobs based on performance, our build quality would go up. Not that GM builds a crappy vehicle all the time, but I've definitely noticed a difference in cars and trucks that are supposed to be exactly the same thing.

I'll stop now to prevent the amount of hate mail sent my way.


---I wouldn't be afraid for GM until you see Chrysler fall...we're light years ahead of them.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

I want to point out that my post, while bashing people who don't need large trucks, SUVs, and vans, does not intend to bash everyone who has one. I only wanted to go after those who drive them in the suburbs, never fill the cargo area, and use only a third of the seats. Work trucks and survival trucks are totally different.

And its mainly those people who buy Hummers. lets face the facts here, if someone wants a vehicle that will be seeing lots of off road punishment will they be buying a $60k Hummer H2 or a $30k Jeep Commander (or similarly priced SUV from anyone else). I know I wouldn't want to scratch up my nice big shinny wheels on the Hummer. But on a Jeep battle wounds are something to be proud of.

If people were buying hummer's because they are needed, their sales would not have dropped by 50%.

[Sterling]

The Aveo is a piece of crap compared to the Civic. It's nothing but a re-badged Daewoo that they ship in from China. It's not an American car. The Cobalt is a better comparison to the Civic and is actually produced by Chevrolet.

[chevydude26]

unions are the stupidest thing ever..its a communist socialist idea...if your good at what you do you will get paid...and negotations are always better off being done individually

[UltimateAdam]

Originally Posted by jsenn

I'll probably piss a lot of people off with this one, but we're all about opinions here at Camaro5, so here it goes...I think the reason GM is so slow with doing things is because of the union contracts. Toyota and Honda get their work done so fast overseas because they can go to anyone to make their products. They can say, "whoever can make this with this quality in this time frame for the least money will get the job". GM cannot. We are so hindered by the rules and regulations that our great grandfathers wrote 100 years ago that it is truly preventing us from moving forward or even keeping up with the times. ie The Camaro should have been out 2 years ago. The Volt should be sitting in my showroom today, the Beat and the other 2 concepts (trax and groove) should be 09 models so that we could whether the storm that is the gas crisis. How is it Mercedes can come out with the Smart car at the same time gas prices top $4/gallon? The answer is they always have a "plan b" that they can start on the drop of a dime to keep up with market trends. GM and really all American Auto makers have really done this to themselves. Instead of trying to own all segments of the market, GM said F*** it, we'll just make quality trucks. Now we have cars like the Aveo that are supposed to compete with cars like the civic...come on. Not that I personally would ever buy a Honda, but to your average consumer, The Aveo is a piece of junk in comparison. Yea, it may be $3500 less than the civic, but that $3500 in consumers eyes is well invested in a car that is as well built as that one is. I blame the big wigs and the Amercian public for being so un-supportive of the largest car company in the world for what's happening right now.

What can we do about it? I think the idea someone wrote earlier about inflating the stock market would be genious, however, it wouldn't happen that easily. Buying stock in GM at under $10 a share seems like a good idea to me because by 2010, the camaro and the Volt will be out, so if you sell at the right time, you should see a reasonable return. But I'm no stock broker so don't quote me on that.

All and all, if GM wants to move ahead, they need to get eith the times. The union is prehistoric at this point. The general public sees a union built car a piece of junk because no matter how these workers perform, they will still get paid and they will not be penalized if they miss a bolt here or a screw there. If these people were fighting for their jobs based on performance, our build quality would go up. Not that GM builds a crappy vehicle all the time, but I've definitely noticed a difference in cars and trucks that are supposed to be exactly the same thing.

I'll stop now to prevent the amount of hate mail sent my way.


---I wouldn't be afraid for GM until you see Chrysler fall...we're light years ahead of them.

Hey, agree with everything you said, just not that piece. I was driving my ex-girlfriends back in 2000

[PA FAST]

Originally Posted by chevydude26

the problem with the volt is that its going to be at the least 40,000 dollars...

out of the realm of affordability of the market that would be interested in saving at the pump...

not to mention that every 2 years you probably have to buy a 3000 dollar battery which totally negates the savings you would from not filling up...not to mention your higher electricity bill...

the only good thing is that if it sells enough they can begin to get economies of scale and begin to sell it at a much cheaper price...and implement the tech into their other more affordable vehicles

but we wouldn't even be having this problem if we had that oil ten years ago...eventually the market will be forced to look for alternatives but the government shouldn't force this change

From what I hear the Volt will get some serious government rebates, I hear as high as $7,000. Thats only $5k more than a fully loaded Chevy Malibu, which isn't bad for all you get. 40 miles gasoline free, all the toys, and knowing as gasoline prices climb ever higher you will make your money back even quicker.

[Kyle2k]

Originally Posted by PA FAST

From what I hear the Volt will get some serious government rebates, I hear as high was $7,000. Thats only $5k more than a fully loaded Chevy Malibu, which isn't bad for all you get. 40 miles gasoline free, all the toys, and knowing as gasoline prices climb ever higher you will make your money back even quicker.

Plus the fact that its going to be the sexiest hybrid... "thing" on the road

[PA FAST]

Originally Posted by Kyle2k

Plus the fact that its going to be the sexiest hybrid... "thing" on the road

Absolutely, it will look many times better than the Prius. That thing looks like a skateboard ramp from the front.

[Beyond Limits]

In the grand scheme of things here bankruptcy would not be an entirely bad thing for GM. It would not mean that they would shut down their doors, and it would not mean that the Camaro would not make it to the market (in fact in bankruptcy court one of the principle things that a company is encouraged to do is to continue to operate in order to get itself back on stable financial grounds). However, what it would allow it to do is to renegotiate their contracts with the UAW. In 2005 health and welfare plans for employees tacked on over $1,500 to the cost of each automobile sold by GM. 3 years later and I would not be surprised if that is now double that figure since more and more employees are starting to hit the retirement age. Now to aggravate things whether you are willing to own up to it or not we are truly a “Walmart society”. What I mean by that is that we continually demand more and more from what we purchase but we are willing to pay less and less for it. (I heard it best described once as we demand a Cadillac for the price of a Hyundai). So what happens… as an automotive manufacturer your profit margins start to close up because the next generation of a car model will actually cost you more to manufacturer but you will not be able to sell it for the same amount of increase in price because everybody will scream about how expensive it has become. And on top of that your health and welfare costs are continually on the rise which also chips away at your already slim profit margins. It is a vicious cycle. Bankruptcy gives the General a lot of power to renegotiate those outstanding contracts with the UAW which will result in lower healthcare costs which will result in a higher profit margin for the company. But in reality no one in the financial sector wants GM to declare bankruptcy. Aside from the direct fiscal implications of such an action, the stock market and our economy in general is very much susceptible to perception and fear. If a cornerstone of the Dow (it has been a member of the index since 1925) is forced to declare bankruptcy things will get pretty ugly, not just on the American financial markets, but the international financial markets as well.

I know that there are those out there that look at Toyota, Honda, and so on that now have plants in the US and say well they don’t have the same kinds of problems that GM has. They will. Remember that the problem with healthcare at GM is not the cost of current employees, it is the cost of continuing health and welfare for all of it’s retired employee base. Their employees have been members of the UAW since 1935 so they have quite a few retired employees out there by now. All of these new players opening up manufacturing facilities in the US, while yes they are also signatory to the UAW, they have not been around long enough to have a large base of retired employees that add to the current health and welfare costs they are paying. They will in due time, but it will probably take them 20 years or so to get there.

Also, don’t forget the reason that the Japanese automakers are starting to open plants in the US is because they are starting to face the same kinds of problems with retired employees back in Japan that GM faces here. So much like GM looked to moving production to other countries to escape those costs, they are moving to the US to escape those costs, the difference is the GM started here.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by fastball

Oil is, and I believe will forever be, the single most versitile commodity ever discovered. For those of you who think it will go away or want it to go away, it ain't happening. Not now, not 5 years from now, not in the 25th century. All these pipe dreams of cars running on puppie smiles and granola bars are just wasted time. We are wasting time not utilizing our own supply. We need to start using what we have that we haven't even tapped yet, and do whatever is necessary to keep the supply ample, affordable, and consistent.

If my point of view on this freaks you out, too bad....and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for cheap gas since there's enough to go around if we just use it.

Your view doesn't freak me out......but I wonder if you're not relying on your own puppy smiles and granola bars by believing that......

You seriously think that we'll be drilling oil forever? That it won't EVER run out being the non-renewable resource that it is? All these "pipe dreams" are called advancement, progress, and technological advancement. Hardly wasted time, imo.

If you want prosperity and a continuation of our freedoms to enjoy this country the way Henry Ford envisioned, you should be in support of using our oil no matter what party you affiliate yourself with.

...how about using oil for the short term untill we get those puppy-smile pipe dreams up and running? I support advancement in alternative, renewable fuels (yes, that includes renewable crude via Algae) that will wean us off an addiction to a fuel that isn't forever going to be available to us. I think we need to invest our time into this growing industry orfrenewable fuels very quickly, so that we can pioneer it, then sell our advancements and expertise to other nations and make a profit. flipping this cancerous importation issue around.

I don't see any benifit in settling back and letting oil continue to dictate the way we as a planet live. Arguments, and wars started over this crap, and that's what's not going away.

Oil makes the economy move forward, it keeps our production going, it keeps product moving from coast to coast, it affects everything we do. All this alternative engergy stuff is just increasing research costs.

Of course oil is responsible for all that, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change it!!! Would you simply suspend all research and development costs? That would place our society at a standstill, both economically and fiscally. We'd collapse, end of story. Advancement in alternative fuels is, can, and will provide jobs and advance our economy the same as oil DID. The POINT of all those research costs is to move forward, drilling for more oil will at best keep us where we are right now.

Cars like the Volt are a good idea as an experiment, but you gonna try to put that kind of logic into a semi truck to pull 10 tons 3,000 miles in a week? Efficienctly? With the ability to run a million miles before you have to do major work on the system? Just wasted time researching it. The diesel and internal combustion engines might be old in concept, but they're absolutely the best way to do it.

It's the liquid fuel that is the backbone of our transportation system, and the reason oil flourishes, NOT the engines. You DO realize that the IC engine is only about 20% efficient? That only 20% of the energy in the fuel moves the vehicle?

Electric motors can have nearly as much torque on tap as deisel engines do, and are nearly 90% efficient. What research is taking place right now is trying to find a fuel (by maximizing a power source's energy density) that can compare to that of gasoline, or desiel. Then you can put it under big rigs. Plus, there are VERY FEW moving parts, less than a desiel engine: so it has the potential to go even further before needing maintinance.

So....no. Internal combustion engines are not the best way to do it. They could even be argued to be one of the worst ways to do it.

I can't help but comment on how ridiculous I think your "wasted time and money" comments are. Especially about things in the early development stages as they are right now. Quite honestly, you sound like you're clinging to old technologies because you know for sure they work. You almost sound like you're afraid of advancement. And you're speaking completely against the ideals that people like Henry Ford had, by the way. He revolutionalized the industry when he came out with the assembly line for the model T. When he spent time and money deveoping the idea. Do you think that revolution would have came from trying to reduce build time by hiring faster workers instead? Or maybe finding smaller workers so more of them could be packed around the car as it was built?

Originally Posted by chevydude26

unions are the stupidest thing ever..its a communist socialist idea...if your good at what you do you will get paid...and negotations are always better off being done individually

Actually Unions WERE the smartest thing ever. The provided a shield of protection against abusive employers, when the entire industry was abusive. A time when it was not so simple as "switch jobs if you don't like it". They were the most effective way to kick management right were it hurts when employees were being mistreated.

[fastball]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Your view doesn't freak me out......but I wonder if you're not relying on your own puppy smiles and granola bars by believing that......

You seriously think that we'll be drilling oil forever? That it won't EVER run out being the non-renewable resource that it is? All these "pipe dreams" are called advancement, progress, and technological advancement. Hardly wasted time, imo.

If we could drill for whatever oil was available wherever and whenever, the supply could last generations, even at the feverish pace we consume it. Yes, it would eventually run out, but long after my great great great grandkids have kicked the bucket.

The IC engine is just about as perfect a power supply for cars as it is an imperfect demonstration of efficiency. The sound, performance, ease of maintenance, cost effectiveness, and relative reliability of it far outweigh the fact that it is inefficient and polutenous. Some companies take them to an art form - could you imagine a day when Ferraris no longer have that beautifully crafted intake manifold on the top of a sweet sounding and just about as perfect performing 48 valve 12 cylinder engine?

Blasphemy.

What are they gonna do? Paint the prancing horse on the top of plain flat battery pack?

Look at the anticipation of the engine choices for our Camaro, just on this forum alone. Who sits and dreams about lithium ions and 230 killowatt generators?

You kill the IC engine, and the interrest in cars for people like us is lost completely. I mean, I would purposfully go out and find the biggest gas hog I could find - maybe a '72 Cadillac Fleetwood, or a Chevy Suburban 4X4 with the 454.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: I would just love to buy my V8 Camaro 6 speed stick, drive it out to Washington DC, and just wait for Nancy Pellosi to walk out of the Capitol building. Then I would drive around in circles just drifting the hell out of the car to get as much smoke and gas as I could, and then yell out the window "Here's to your CAFE - stick it in your pipe and smoke it!"

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by fastball

Blasphemy.

What are they gonna do? Paint the prancing horse on the top of plain flat battery pack?

Look at the anticipation of the engine choices for our Camaro, just on this forum alone. Who sits and dreams about lithium ions and 230 killowatt generators?

You kill the IC engine, and the interrest in cars for people like us is lost completely. I mean, I would purposfully go out and find the biggest gas hog I could find - maybe a '72 Cadillac Fleetwood, or a Chevy Suburban 4X4 with the 454.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: I would just love to buy my V8 Camaro 6 speed stick, drive it out to Washington DC, and just wait for Nancy Pellosi to walk out of the Capitol building. Then I would drive around in circles just drifting the hell out of the car to get as much smoke and gas as I could, and then yell out the window "Here's to your CAFE - stick it in your pipe and smoke it!"

I don't disagree with you AT ALL.

but...apparently I'm an oddity in that when I see 230kw, and I know that's somewhere north of 300hp. Then I think of the massive, instant torque......Geeze, I dunno. I do see where you're coming from, now. But whereas you don't like the idea of electrification of automobiles, I guess I do.

[Kyle2k]

Originally Posted by fastball

If we could drill for whatever oil was available wherever and whenever, the supply could last generations, even at the feverish pace we consume it. Yes, it would eventually run out, but long after my great great great grandkids have kicked the bucket.

The IC engine is just about as perfect a power supply for cars as it is an imperfect demonstration of efficiency. The sound, performance, ease of maintenance, cost effectiveness, and relative reliability of it far outweigh the fact that it is inefficient and polutenous. Some companies take them to an art form - could you imagine a day when Ferraris no longer have that beautifully crafted intake manifold on the top of a sweet sounding and just about as perfect performing 48 valve 12 cylinder engine?

Blasphemy.

What are they gonna do? Paint the prancing horse on the top of plain flat battery pack?

Look at the anticipation of the engine choices for our Camaro, just on this forum alone. Who sits and dreams about lithium ions and 230 killowatt generators?

You kill the IC engine, and the interrest in cars for people like us is lost completely. I mean, I would purposfully go out and find the biggest gas hog I could find - maybe a '72 Cadillac Fleetwood, or a Chevy Suburban 4X4 with the 454.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: I would just love to buy my V8 Camaro 6 speed stick, drive it out to Washington DC, and just wait for Nancy Pellosi to walk out of the Capitol building. Then I would drive around in circles just drifting the hell out of the car to get as much smoke and gas as I could, and then yell out the window "Here's to your CAFE - stick it in your pipe and smoke it!"

Your great great great great great grand kids might be enthused by that 230kw generator or lithium ion battery (notice the more greats). And at that point the way you would upgrade your car will be with a circuit board.

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

but...apparently I'm an oddity in that when I see 230kw, and I know that's somewhere north of 300hp. Then I think of the massive, instant torque......Geeze, I dunno. I do see where you're coming from, now. But whereas you don't like the idea of electrification of automobiles, I guess I do.

Just a tidbit of information dragon- electric engines but any v8- minus top fuel drags to shame in the torque competition and availability.

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/co...age_autos+lede

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12...-can-be-yours/



__________________________________________________ ____________________________


Some might mention the fact that these cars are expensive. Two notes on that:

some are prototypes-just like the $2 million concept Camaro....

And most (if not all of it) is new technology...This stuff will get cheaper over time and likely in the next couple decades, so like everything else it will get cheaper ala- computers

[stovt001]

Originally Posted by SilverTurtle

I think we all agree that doing away with oil futures would go a long way towards lowering the price of fuel... because speculation is just silly... its as close to gambling as you can get in the stock market... and really has no business being there.

Speak for yourself. Only people who don't know what oil futures are think that would help. Let me give everyone a brief overview of the process: when an investor ("speculator") buys an oil future they are essentially betting on what direction the value of oil will go from the time they buy the future to the time the future matures. The future matures when it is sold from the investor to someone who takes delivery of the oil (refineries, etc). By buying a future, the investor is betting the price of oil will go up. By not buying the future immediately, the refinery is betting the price will go down. Because the investor takes possession of no oil, they cannot take it off the market and therefore they have no impact on the price. So if oil costs $130 a barrel now, and their future matures in 1 month, and in 1 month oil costs $135 a barrel, they earn money at the expense of the people who didn't buy earlier. If the price goes down, they lose to the people who held off. Yes they do benefit from rising oil prices, but they don't cause rising oil profits. This is not a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc and that is the real misunderstanding. For reference consider the onion market. They have no futures because it was falsely believed that futures were raising the price. Laws were passed banning onion futures, and recently onion prices have risen faster than oil prices. Another way to think of it (though this is a weak analogy) is like stock in a company- by buying stock you are not raising the revenue of that company, but instead are betting that revenue will increase (or whatever other factor causes the stock price to rise).

Also to the people who say innovation is good, but we should demand unfairly cheap oil in the meantime, my argument is that we haven't made much energy progress in the past few decades because gas was so artificially cheap. If gas dropped to $1 a gallon tomorrow (heck even $3 a gallon) would anyone care about alternative fuels, efficiency, or any of that? Heck no. The Volt would be scrapped, the genius pioneers working to create new, clean, sustainable energy mediums would be sent to the poor house, and our freeways would be jammed solid with soccer moms and lone commuters driving Hummer H12s the size of extra-wide semis. Then gas would creep back up to market levels again, and all the sheep would be screaming bloody murder and we'll repeat this whole idiotic process all over again. Or we could just deal with a few uncomfortable years, make reasonable adaptations, and then reap the rewards of our new smarter energy projects, sustaining us on a much more long-term basis.